2025-cv-07242

COMPLAINT filed by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited; JURY DEMAND. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23684181.

Exhibit 1 to the Complaint Filed Under Seal

Exhibit 1 to the Complaint

Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin

Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE

Exhibit Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order

Exhibit 1 to the Amended Complaint

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited UNREDACTED COMPLAINT AND EXHIBITS

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint Filed Under Seal

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin

Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin

Exhibit 3 to the Complaint

Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin

Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin in Support of Temporary Restraining Order

Exhibit 2 to the Amended Complaint

Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin

CIVIL Cover Sheet

(Exhibit 3 to the Complaint Filed Under Seal)

(Exhibit 3 to the Complaint)

(Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin)

(Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin)

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of J. Sheskin

Exhibit 3 to the Amended Complaint

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to seal PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of J. Sheskin

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT

Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of J. Sheskin

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited

Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of J. Sheskin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joshua Howard Sheskin for Joseph W. Droter

Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of J. Sheskin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joshua Howard Sheskin for Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu

Declaration of Liangjie Li in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joshua Howard Sheskin for Katherine Kuhn

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joshua Howard Sheskin for Gokalp Bayramoglu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joshua Howard Sheskin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Gokalp Bayramoglu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joseph Wendell Droter

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (Text entry; no document attached.)

CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (Text entry; no document attached.)

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, [4], is denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. Id. at 2-6. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[a]s a general matter [ ] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief (as opposed to statutory damages) in this case. See id. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, [8], is therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, [2], [5], are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 7/9/2025.

EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited PUBLIC amended exhibits regarding complaint, [1]

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for service by publication FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF PROCESS

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for leave to file excess pages IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for temporary restraining order and Expedited Discovery

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 9/10/2025, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the defendants in the Schedule A should not be severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltda. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). In the alternative, plaintiff may discharge the order by filing an amended complaint with only one defendant, or with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited as to Defendant JZGPF (Defendant No. 1)

AMENDED complaint by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited against TICTICMISS Fashion and terminating The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) TICTICMISS Fashion by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant TICTICMISS Fashion

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for service by publication RENEWED MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(f)(3) AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY FRCP 45